Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I still love to re-read that one, because it makes clear that for Mignini it's not about justice, but his very own "bella figura"...

Dismissed was it? ROTFLMAO! I noticed it also contained the lie that there was Knox's and Kercher's "mixed blood". My favorite however, was the assertion that the fact Curatolo had been a prosecution witness a few times before in other cases was evidence of his credibility!

Mignini files lawsuits more often than Trump lies. Well....maybe not quite as often as that would be almost impossible.

Dismissed was it? ROTFLMAO! I noticed it also contained the lie that there was Knox's and Kercher's "mixed blood". My favorite however, was the assertion that the fact Curatolo had been a prosecution witness a few times before in other cases was evidence of his credibility!

Mignini files lawsuits more often than Trump lies. Well....maybe not quite as often as that would be almost impossible.

What is clear from reading the English translation of Mignini's own "Submission of Criminal Complaint," is that the remaining guilters are simply, unquestioningly singing off of Mignini's songsheet. For instance, the only source I've seen (if there are others I hope someone would provide the link) that the 2015 ISC acquittals should not have used the second paragraph of Section 530 to accomplish it, is in this submission. Oh, and then there's Mignini's assertion of "mixed blood" as Stacyhs has pointed out. Hoots!

The continual trashing of Knox on this thread is, functionally, from surrogates of Giuliano Mignini. And he lost.

And once again, here is yet another newspiece, this one Umbria24 from May 2016 which makes mention that the Supreme Court in 2015 had definitively acquitted the pair. Definitively. Acquitted.

Sheesh.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

I find it interesting, and telling, that PIP tend to discuss the evidence rather than Knox's personal character whereas PGP revel in attacking her on a personal level. We have seen this excessive need to demonize and disparage Knox at every opportunity, even going so far as to claim knowledge of what she feels and thinks on this very site. I have to wonder just what psychological need manifests itself in this online spewing of venom and hatred toward Knox? That there is a profound, disturbing, and unbalanced psychology at play here, there is no doubt.

I find it interesting, and telling, that PIP tend to discuss the evidence rather than Knox's personal character whereas PGP revel in attacking her on a personal level. We have seen this excessive need to demonize and disparage Knox at every opportunity, even going so far as to claim knowledge of what she feels and thinks on this very site. I have to wonder just what psychological need manifests itself in this online spewing of venom and hatred toward Knox? That there is a profound, disturbing, and unbalanced psychology at play here, there is no doubt.

Maybe because we don't know Amanda's personal character. Or at least the vast majority of us don't.

I don't know if I would dislike or like Amanda. But if you conclude that you don't know Amanda other than what can be confirmed about Amanda I can't see how you can conclude that she is a bad person. There isn't a line of people in the Seattle area where she has lived all but 4 years of her life spouting off defaming remarks. In fact, the opposite is true. Person after person only have good things to say. Perhaps she is a closet bitch but if that were true how could I suggest something that is hidden?

The PGP has no interest in discussing the evidence as the evidence doesn't support their bias. They have made up their minds Amanda and Raffaele are sociopaths and all the facts wouldn't change that.

To this day, I wonder how Vixen, and the rest of the gang would react if Rudy admitted that he did it entirely on his own. (Not that I expect Rudy to do this. I don't.) That absolutely neither Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with the murder. What would the PGP do. My guess, is that they wouldn't believe him.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Maybe because we don't know Amanda's personal character. Or at least the vast majority of us don't.

I don't know if I would dislike or like Amanda. But if you conclude that you don't know Amanda other than what can be confirmed about Amanda I can't see how you can conclude that she is a bad person. There isn't a line of people in the Seattle area where she has lived all but 4 years of her life spouting off defaming remarks. In fact, the opposite is true. Person after person only have good things to say. Perhaps she is a closet bitch but if that were true how could I suggest something that is hidden?

The PGP has no interest in discussing the evidence as the evidence doesn't support their bias. They have made up their minds Amanda and Raffaele are sociopaths and all the facts wouldn't change that.

To this day, I wonder how Vixen, and the rest of the gang would react if Rudy admitted that he did it entirely on his own. (Not that I expect Rudy to do this. I don't.) That absolutely neither Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with the murder. What would the PGP do. My guess, is that they wouldn't believe him.

I agree; they wouldn't. I don't think if a video tape emerged showing Guede climbing in through Filomena's window that they'd believe it. It would mean they'd have to admit they were wrong...and that is not their strong point.

You're on to something. That should be "posts", plural. The continual citationless claims banged out by the dozen demonstrate a bizarre obsession. The advice upthread is sound, delete the term "Amanda Knox" from your google alerts "and stop worrying about what some random woman from Seattle has to say", and quit with the creepy use of the familiar term for the victim of this now decade-old, albeit still horrible crime.

Quit obsessively accusing someone of a crime they did not commit.

The creepy references to Knox actually creates her noteworthiness, the very thing you say she does not deserve. So quit with the multiple, creepy references and the whole thing will disappear.

ETA - you barely ever mention Rudy Guede and he's now virtually forgotten. See how it works?

I don't have a google alert. I understand this is something the PIP has?

I think it is is important to challenge the kids false claims 'the police framed us' as it simply is not true,

I could not care less what some random woman from Seattle has to say, except when it embelishes the fake claim of being an exoneree being found innocent.

Fact is, I neither like or dislike this pair. It is their behaviour I despise.

As has been pointed out. The book was released after Amanda was acquitted and exonerated. And again, you only know that Amanda had help writing the book. Not that it was ghost written. Amanda is as innocent of murder and a sex crime as you are.
So? Some of our lives are thrust upon us.

What message is that? That 2 people who were wrongfully incarcerated and ground up by the legal system might have a perspective worth hearing?

I think it is a great message and am glad some feel sick by it. I love that it bothers the disgusting obscene morons who feel the need to continue to post their vile lies on the Internet. I love that Amanda and Raffaele are paid for their opinions by the LA Times, Salon, the New York Times etc while the unpaid sickos whine on social media.

I wrote many posts that Amanda and Raffaele had no choice but to do this. People were not going to leave them alone so they might as well use their fame to help others and make a living from it. You have only yourself to blame. If it wasn't the interest from fangirls like yourself that click on every article this wouldn't have happened.

That's not true. The book was written whilst the process was still ongoing.

Once again you resort to telling us things you cannot possibly know. But that's pretty much par for the course now.

"The only explanation Knox can offer for her prosecution"? Really? You really wrote that? Knox has given many reasons as to why she was prosecuted: tunnel vision by the police and prosecution, media sensationalism,
pressure to find and arrest the killer, suspect-centered investigation, etc. I suggest you read the Supreme Court's criticism again as they saw many of the same reasons.

Please stop falsely claiming calunnia equals obstruction of justice in the US. It does not. There is NO equivalent to Italy's calunnia in the US. The closest equivalent is defamation (slander and libel). We've been over this before and you could never provide any evidence of your claim so please, just stop.

Calumny:
•a false and malicious statement meant to hurt someone's reputation
• the uttering of such a statement; slander

(Webster Legal Law Dictionary)

Lying/making false statements can ONLY be prosecuted as obstruction in the US if it is done UNDER OATH. Amanda was never under oath.

It is a class example of confirmation bias when someone continues to make a claim that has been repeatedly proved false but cannot provide any evidence of that claim being true.

Stop talking rubbish. Slander and libel are merely civil matters. Obstruction of justice includes exactly what Amanda was convicted of, aiming to pervert the course of [FBI] investigators and is a federal felony which attracts on average five year's jail in most US states.

I don't have a google alert. I understand this is something the PIP has?

I think it is is important to challenge the kids false claims 'the police framed us' as it simply is not true,

I could not care less what some random woman from Seattle has to say, except when it embelishes the fake claim of being an exoneree being found innocent.

Fact is, I neither like or dislike this pair. It is their behaviour I despise.

There's nothing in any of their behavior since arrested that is inconsistent with their own claims of being innocent. Your interpretation of their behavior is something entirely predicated on your own personal opinion about what you believe happened in the cottage on the evening of the 1st. It is something you project onto them, not something that is objectively projected by them.

So when Amanda Knox says something like "I am innocent, the police misbehaved." It is neither new, nor interesting, nor helpful that you remind us "I believe she is lying and those statements are false." I think we all get that.

Regarding Maori's "wining and dining" (according to Vixen) of Conti and Vecchiotti from Mignini's deposition:

So, they were being "wined and dined" standing in front of the courthouse and in a bar in full public view and where anyone nearby could have heard what was being said. This is absolute evidence of collusion in the PGP version of reality. Sheesh.

You don't get Bar Standards, do you?

During a live trial all evidence relating to it must be shared by all parties, together with the judge.

Any barrister expecting to chat with the judge 'in chambers' or an independant expert witness wanting the private ear of one of the parties, is grossly negligent in their duty to the court.

Dismissed was it? ROTFLMAO! I noticed it also contained the lie that there was Knox's and Kercher's "mixed blood". My favorite however, was the assertion that the fact Curatolo had been a prosecution witness a few times before in other cases was evidence of his credibility!

Mignini files lawsuits more often than Trump lies. Well....maybe not quite as often as that would be almost impossible.

Yes, in mafia-ridden Italy, libelling the prosecutor, sadly is common practice.

Perhaps now you understand why Raff's book was a seen as a criminal attempt to do exactly that.

Maybe because we don't know Amanda's personal character. Or at least the vast majority of us don't.

I don't know if I would dislike or like Amanda. But if you conclude that you don't know Amanda other than what can be confirmed about Amanda I can't see how you can conclude that she is a bad person. There isn't a line of people in the Seattle area where she has lived all but 4 years of her life spouting off defaming remarks. In fact, the opposite is true. Person after person only have good things to say. Perhaps she is a closet bitch but if that were true how could I suggest something that is hidden?

The PGP has no interest in discussing the evidence as the evidence doesn't support their bias. They have made up their minds Amanda and Raffaele are sociopaths and all the facts wouldn't change that.

To this day, I wonder how Vixen, and the rest of the gang would react if Rudy admitted that he did it entirely on his own. (Not that I expect Rudy to do this. I don't.) That absolutely neither Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with the murder. What would the PGP do. My guess, is that they wouldn't believe him.

Remember when Amanda was arrested and the police had her signed confession, and the murder weapon from her boyfriends kitchen with the victim's DNA on it, and they declared "Case Closed, the investigation phase is over."

And Rudy was chatting with his friend on Skype and was like "Yeah actually all of that is BS lol."

He seemed to have some inside information that an apparently ironclad case closed crime happened another way. Like, he wasn't impressed that an almost literal smoking gun, a bloody knife, was set to bring Knox down. He somehow anticipated that it would be thrown out as the murder weapon.

He must have psychic powers to look into the future and see Raff's dad bribing the local appellate council to install a crooked judge who would find two crooked professors to contest the DNA evidence in their report and eventually get appealed up to Rome with a new panel of more bent judges who finally ended the case.

Either that or he had a simple thought...well it probably wasn't the murder weapon... seeing as the murder weapon was my switchblade I dumped off Ponte Rio...

But never mind that, a recorded eyewitness unprompted candid confession is worth nothing in comparison to your own DNA being found in your own sink, so carry on

I don't have a google alert. I understand this is something the PIP has?

I think it is is important to challenge the kids false claims 'the police framed us' as it simply is not true,

I could not care less what some random woman from Seattle has to say, except when it embelishes the fake claim of being an exoneree being found innocent.

Fact is, I neither like or dislike this pair. It is their behaviour I despise.

1) Despising someone's behaviour is, de facto, disliking that person.

2) What exactly is it about Knox's/Sollecito's behaviour that you despise? (in your answer, please bear in mind that: a) Knox and Sollecito were (correctly) acquitted and exonerated by the highest court in Italy; b) there was/is zero credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder; c) it is, in fact, highly probable that neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in Kercher's murder; d) all of the known evidence is, in fact, entirely compatible with Guede acting alone (and there is solid, safe evidence to prove Guede's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt)).

The fact Linda Kulman is named as the author of Knox's pack of lies book, proves she is accredited with it and gets shared royalties.

Ghost writers are not normally named. A friend of mine in the know in the publishing world informs me Jeffrey Archer has a whole team of them.

Jeffery Archer gets the royalties.

Hilariously, you've contradicted your own point. You're entirely correct that ghost writers are not named. The clue is in the word "ghost".

And you clearly have next to no idea about how large publishers choose to work with first-time authors writing autobiographies/memoirs who are somewhat outside their comfort zone (e.g, celebrities in non-writing fields, sports people, people falsely accused of serious criminal offences.....). It's in fact entirely normal (actually it's virtually a given) that publishers will provide an experienced writer to assist with structure, pacing, vocabulary, consistency and so on.

During a live trial all evidence relating to it must be shared by all parties, together with the judge.

Any barrister expecting to chat with the judge 'in chambers' or an independant expert witness wanting the private ear of one of the parties, is grossly negligent in their duty to the court.

Of course, you have evidence of what exactly was discussed in these (alleged) brief encounters between Conti/Vecchiotti and the defence teams? Because you're clearly claiming that what was discussed was privileged information related to the case. I'm assuming therefore that you have reliable evidence that this was what was discussed in these brief encounters (rather than, say, an exchange of pleasantries and/or a generalised chat about the anticipated length of the trial etc.....).

What's that? You have ZERO evidence of what actually was discussed in these (alleged) brief encounters between Conti/Vecchiotti and the defence teams??

And what Guede does or doesn't say after he's released is totally irrelevant. Guede provably participated in Kercher's murder, and the evidence is wholly consistent with him acting alone.

Rudy Guede, Meredith Kercher's killer, is the best resource guilters have. Indeed the appeals court conviction in 2014 relied solely on Guede to provide motive for the wholley-invented motive/scenario which was supposed to have driven Knox.

Not a sex game, not pooh, but rent money. Yessirree Bob, we're lucky to have had Rudy to be such an impartial witness!!!!

Ultimately guilters love Rudy. He can lend an authoritative voice to the slander campaign aimed at two exonerated.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Maybe because we don't know Amanda's personal character. Or at least the vast majority of us don't.

I don't know if I would dislike or like Amanda. But if you conclude that you don't know Amanda other than what can be confirmed about Amanda I can't see how you can conclude that she is a bad person. There isn't a line of people in the Seattle area where she has lived all but 4 years of her life spouting off defaming remarks. In fact, the opposite is true. Person after person only have good things to say. Perhaps she is a closet bitch but if that were true how could I suggest something that is hidden?

The PGP has no interest in discussing the evidence as the evidence doesn't support their bias. They have made up their minds Amanda and Raffaele are sociopaths and all the facts wouldn't change that.

To this day, I wonder how Vixen, and the rest of the gang would react if Rudy admitted that he did it entirely on his own. (Not that I expect Rudy to do this. I don't.) That absolutely neither Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with the murder. What would the PGP do. My guess, is that they wouldn't believe him.

He already did this, way back when he was on the run and thought he was talking to his friend in private. That's when he tells us Amanda had nothing to do with it and the description of the guy he claimed was there doesn't fit Raffaele, whom he doesn't even know. So yeah, they definitely would not accept it as the truth. My guess is they would claim Marriott made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

That's not true. The book was written whilst the process was still ongoing.

No, they had been found not guilty. They had no reason to believe that the Supreme Court would do something stupid.
But you can argue this point till you're blue in the face. It won't make a difference. It's over and Amanda and Raffaele are making a living commenting on other legal cases and you are posting here and not making a dime.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

You don't think Linda Kulman would have any rights to the royalties if all she did was 'advise' Knox?

Come off it. Kulman wrote the whole thing and interpreted how Knox must have felt by imagining 'what-if it's true Mignini framed her'?

How do you know if she is making royalties and wasn't paid a flat fee? I didn't know that her financial arrangements with Harper Collins had been published. Care to present a cite? Or did you make this up as well?

I don't expect you to. It won't matter. You're making just another fallacious deduction. You don't even know if the original premise is true let alone the deduction. But this isn't a surprise to anyone since we've seen you do it thousands of times.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

The fact Linda Kulman is named as the author of Knox's pack of lies book, proves she is accredited with it and gets shared royalties.

Ghost writers are not normally named. A friend of mine in the know in the publishing world informs me Jeffrey Archer has a whole team of them.

Jeffery Archer gets the royalties.

You simply do not know this. You have absolutely no knowledge of every writers financial arrangements. But that Linda was named eliminates her from being a ghost writer. She is a co-writer. Nobody questions that she was involved in writing the book only that NONE of US...you too, have a clue as to how much was written by Linda.

That's the difference between you and me Vixen. I don't mouth off pretending I know something I couldn't.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

He already did this, way back when he was on the run and thought he was talking to his friend in private. That's when he tells us Amanda had nothing to do with it and the description of the guy he claimed was there doesn't fit Raffaele, whom he doesn't even know. So yeah, they definitely would not accept it as the truth. My guess is they would claim Marriott made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

True.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Where is she named the author? I'm looking at the book right now and the "About the Author" page is about Amanda. Actually, Linda Kulman isn't named anywhere in the book or it's jacket.

Thanks TC. I assumed that Vixen wouldn't make up something so easy to verify. I should know better. So, by Vixen's own words Linda probably isn't receiving royalties which makes the premise her deduction based upon false which in turn makes her deduction necessarily fallacious.

Way to go Vixen.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

You simply do not know this. You have absolutely no knowledge of every writers financial arrangements. But that Linda was named eliminates her from being a ghost writer. She is a co-writer. Nobody questions that she was involved in writing the book only that NONE of US...you too, have a clue as to how much was written by Linda.

That's the difference between you and me Vixen. I don't mouth off pretending I know something I couldn't.

"Linda Kulman

I am a journalist, writer, editor, and the author, most recently, of Teaching Common Sense: The Grand Strategy Program at Yale University about one of Yale’s best-known and most sought-after courses. Based on several years of onsite reporting, archival research, interviews with students and faculty, and original survey data, Teaching Common Sense looks at “Studies in Grand Strategy,” a year-long, by-application leadership seminar. The course addresses some of higher education’s bedrock question, such as how is critical thinking taught and how will this generation learn to cope with uncertainty in a fast-changing world.

I have collaborated on seven nonfiction books, working successfully with a group of diverse, demanding personalities to tell their personal, and sometimes painful, stories. These include Amanda Knox’s New York Times bestselling memoir, Waiting to be Heard; Hillary Clinton’s Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets, written while she was First Lady; New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s All Things Possible: Setbacks and Success in Politics and Life; George McGovern’s What It Means to Be a Democrat; George Foreman’s Guide to Life: How to Get Up Off the Canvas When Life Knocks You Down; and James Carville’s We’re Right, They’re Wrong. Each of these projects required me to become an expert on a nuanced topic, whether on the Italian legal system, the root causes of homelessness, heavyweight wrestling, the history of pets in the White House, or gun safety reform. ...."

I don't have a google alert. I understand this is something the PIP has?

I think it is is important to challenge the kids false claims 'the police framed us' as it simply is not true,

I could not care less what some random woman from Seattle has to say, except when it embelishes the fake claim of being an exoneree being found innocent.

Fact is, I neither like or dislike this pair. It is their behaviour I despise.

There's a Google alert for us PIP? Darn! Why was I never informed of this? I'm sending off a letter of protest immediately to Gogerty-Marriott and cc'ing Bruce Fisher. Thanks for letting me know, Vix!

"The kids"? For someone who has a conniption fit when Amanda is referred to as a "kid" at the time of the murder, you do like to use the term yourself.

Citation please for your claim that Knox said the police "framed them". She has said they had tunnel vision, bias, and the investigation was incredibly incompetent...as did the Supreme Court... but she has never said she was "framed".

You "don't dislike the pair"? The multitude of posts you have made denigrating both, but Knox especially, on a personal level very clearly show otherwise. Would you like me to quote some here?